I’m not the least bit surprised that President Trump signed the waiver to delay moving our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, as each of our presidents has done since 1995. I’m disappointed, because he made such a point of this during the campaign, assuring us that he would be the man to make this momentous move. But I’m not surprised.

We’ve had indications that he was waffling on this for several weeks now. Plus, a move like this is easier said than done.

Still, there’s reason for hope in the midst of the disappointment.

Trump is Committed to Israel’s Well-Being

First, as a White House official emphasized, “It’s a question of when, not if.”

Yes, “President Trump made this decision to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, fulfilling his solemn obligation to defend America’s national security interests. But, as he has repeatedly stated his intention to move the embassy, the question is not if that move happens, but only when.”

This is positive. I don’t recall past presidents making this point so emphatically. We will move the embassy, just not yet.

Second, sources indicate that Trump actually yelled at Palestinian President Abbas when they met during the president’s Middle East trip. This led to several minutes of stunned silence on the Palestinian side. “You tricked me in D.C.!”, Trump is reported to have said. “You talked there about your commitment to peace, but the Israelis showed me your involvement in incitement [against Israel].”

This too would indicate that President Trump is striking a very different tone than his predecessors.

Third, there was no indication that the president put heavy pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu when they met, telling him he would have to make major sacrifices, or else. Certainly, there was talk of making concessions for peace. But again, we have no indication that Trump tried to force Netanyahu’s hand on any major issues.

That could explain why Israel’s official response to the announcement that relocating the embassy had been postponed was muted: “Though Israel is disappointed that the embassy will not move at this time, we appreciate today’s expression of President Trump’s friendship to Israel and his commitment to moving the embassy in the future.”

Of course, Israel reiterated that “the American embassy, like the embassies of all countries with whom we have diplomatic relations, should be in Jerusalem, our eternal capital.” But the statement itself expresses only mild disappointment, given Trump’s clear commitment to Israel’s well-being.

Will There Ever be a Good Time to Move the Embassy?

The real problem, however, is this. A White House official explained that, “In timing such a move, [the president] will seek to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians.”

Unfortunately, moving the embassy to Jerusalem will always be a point of contention with the Palestinians and the larger Muslim world. As noted in Israel’s statement, “Maintaining embassies outside the capital drives peace further away by helping keep alive the Palestinian fantasy that the Jewish people and the Jewish state have no connection to Jerusalem.”

Why keep this fantasy alive? The Palestinians are totally dependent on America to help broker peace negotiations. And at some point, they will have to accept that our embassy will be in Jerusalem. Why not make the move now, while also affirming to the Palestinians our commitment to work for their best interests as well?

As I (along with others) suggested previously, nothing is stopping us from moving the embassy to West Jerusalem. Even Russia recognizes this as Israel’s capital (while claiming that East Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state). We can make this move without making a final determination about a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. (Obviously, I don’t believe there is any historic Palestinian claim to East Jerusalem. But again, that can be a subject for later talks.)

The Camp David Accords are almost 40 years old (signed in September, 1978). The Oslo Accords are nearly 25 years old (signed September, 1993). Does President Trump really think that by not moving our embassy to Jerusalem now, we will be able to move the peace process forward? And can he really imagine that there will be some magic, opportune time to make the move in the future?

I’m thankful that President Trump is showing himself to be a true friend of Israel. He is holding the Palestinians’ feet to the fire over terrorism and he has reaffirmed his commitment to stand with the Jewish State. I would just urge him once again to do what no other president has done.

Mr. Trump, be the man who made the move.

As I wrote last month, I’ll write again: History will smile on you for it. (For more from the author of “Trump Not Moving Our Embassy to Jerusalem — Yet” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

President Donald Trump will meet with the leader of the Palestinian Authority this week, ahead of his first trip to Israel expected later this month.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will visit the White House Wednesday, with a U.S. president that seems decidedly pro-Israel, while also genuinely interested in a Middle East peace deal.

“The president’s ultimate goal is to establish peace in the region and so I think that’s obviously the goal and the discussion he’s going to have with the head of the Palestinian Authority,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer told The Daily Signal during the White House press briefing on Monday.

“That’s going to be a relationship he’s going to continue to work on and build with the ultimate goal that there is peace in that region between Israel and the Palestinian Authority,” Spicer added.

Still, considering the political problems Abbas is facing among his own people, experts have a mixed view on whether the visit will have any significance.

As a candidate, Trump pledged to relocate the Israeli Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a move that could spark rage among Palestinians.

The Daily Signal asked Monday if Trump will talk about moving the embassy during his Wednesday meeting with Abbas.

“That is still being discussed by staff,” Spicer told The Daily Signal.

In an interview last week, Trump told Reuters, “ask me in a month on that,” about moving the embassy to Jerusalem.

“I want to see peace with Israel and the Palestinians,” the president added. “There is no reason there’s not peace between Israel and the Palestinians—none whatsoever.”

The meeting presents a major opportunity for Abbas, said Robert Danin, a senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“President Trump is not interested in peace process or in negotiations for negotiations’ sake. He is interested in a deal,” Danin told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “There are a lot of questions about Abbas and his political standing. He has to convince the president that he can close the deal. It’s a big challenge, but it’s also a tremendous opportunity.”

Trump met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in February. During a joint press conference with the two leaders, Trump predicted a “bigger and better” Middle East peace deal than anyone expects. He asked Israel to hold back on settlements, and said he is open to a two-state solution or one-state solution, whichever is more likely to bring peace.

Trump has said that his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, would be in charge of reaching a peace deal.

Danin added that Trump could be in a stronger position than previous presidents, and could even put pressure on Israel that President Barack Obama couldn’t.

“The people of Israel believe Trump is on their side,” Danin said. “President Trump doesn’t believe settlements and settlers are bad guys. He believes the settlements are part of the answer, but he hasn’t demonized the settlers as President Obama did. They believe he wants to move the embassy to Jerusalem, no matter what he does.”

At this stage, Abbas has little influence as a leader, said Jim Phillips, a senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs with The Heritage Foundation.

“I think the Abbas visit will yield little results. Abbas is unwilling and unable to reach a comprehensive peace agreement with Israel on acceptable terms,” Phillips told The Daily Signal.

Abbas, 82, is facing a tough political climate at home. Though his term was supposed to expire in 2009, he remained in power without an election nor designated successor. His party, Fatah, is also divided.

“He has no control over Hamas, which is virulently opposed to Israel’s existence, let alone negotiations, and it would torpedo any final accord he would sign,” Phillips said. “Even many of his own supporters within Fatah have abandoned him. He is yesterday’s man and is increasingly irrelevant to what happens tomorrow.”

Trump did the right thing in reaching out to Abbas for a meeting, said Clare Lopez, vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security Policy, a conservative foreign policy think tank in the District of Columbia. However, she said no one should expect a breakthrough on a peace deal.

“I’m not exactly sure why the U.S. keeps trying. Every time, the Palestinians were offered a deal, a good deal, under President [Bill] Clinton, under President [George W.] Bush, they walked away,” Lopez told The Daily Signal. “Whether it’s Hamas in Gaza or Fatah in the West Bank, this is Islam, it’s not political.”

Lopez said that any Palestinian leader who wanted to recognize Israel’s right to exist would be marginalized, accused of apostasy, and likely to face threats to his life. (For more from the author of “What’s at Stake in Trump Meeting With Palestinian Leader” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is corrupt to its core, and its lashing out at Israel is a manifestation of the group’s immoral, corrupt structure. Tasked a decade ago with promoting and defending human rights around the world, the UNHRC has failed to carry out its founding mission.

The U.S. delegation to the council, led by Erin Barclay, threatened America’s departure from the prominent U.N. subdivision Wednesday, claiming the international organization’s unhealthy “obsession” with the state of Israel threatens the group’s credibility and “makes a mockery of this council.”

In Geneva, Barclay, the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state, stated: “The U.S. also remains deeply troubled by the council’s consistent, unfair and unbalanced focus on one democratic country, Israel.”

“For this council to have any credibility, let alone success, it must move away from its unbalanced and unproductive positions,” she said. “As we consider our future engagements, my government will be considering the council’s actions with an eye to reform, to more fully achieve the council’s missions to protect and promote human rights.”

The UNHRC has long been a group that has overlooked worldwide atrocities in favor of singling out Israel with rhetorical aggression and condemnation.

But the UNHRC not only has an Israel problem — the institution’s membership roster itself shows why it could never truly promote human rights. After all, how can an organization have any credibility on human rights when its members are a who’s who of the world’s foremost violators of universal ideals?

Ruthless authoritarian countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, China, Cuba, Venezuela, and many others are tasked with upholding the UNHRC’s core mission to promote and protect human rights.

In 2015, the council chose Saudi Arabia’s ambassador Faisal bin Hassan Trad to chair the UNHRC panel on selecting human rights experts. In the ambassador’s country, women are treated as second-class citizens. They cannot go out in public without a male companion, and need to wear clothing that covers them head-to-toe, with only their eyes and hands permitted to be uncovered. In Saudi Arabia, Islam is the only recognized religion, and the country follows an extremely harsh penal code to punish violations of Shariah law.

The U.N. Human Rights Council has long abandoned the promotion of actual human rights and has dedicated the last decade to delegitimizing Israel – the only free country in the Middle East.

From 2006 to 2016, the UNHRC adopted 135 resolutions condemning countries. An incredibe 68 (over half) of those resolutions singled out the Jewish state for criticism.

However, Israel is only a symptom of the cancer that is the UNHRC. If the United States wants the UNHRC to foster an environment that campaigns for true human rights, the U.N. body needs to purge the forces of evil from within it. (For more from the author of “Anti-Israel Hate Is a Symptom of the UN Human Rights Council’s Cancerous Corruption” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.